Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muraqabah


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was redirect to Muraqaba, wikipedia isn't an instruction manual, a better article on the same subject already exists. - Bobet 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Muraqabah

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Also, I believe that there is a high probability that this is a copyvio that the author does not understand the implications of releasing under the GFDL. IPSOS (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - now I notice that there is a proper article on the topic at Muraqaba. So this article should be deleted and redirected. IPSOS (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Delete and redirect --SLi 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe the original editor has added a comment, but in the wrong place. To be sure it is considered, please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Muraqabah. Notinasnaid 08:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment i dont think it is polite for people of other faiths to come accross an article and recommend deletion instead of how to fix the article . This opens my concerns to hate crime or bigotry. some of the editors list their religion convictions and seem to be recommending harsh approach to deleting our article . please reconsider and stop this process and help to construct and proper article if that is required. nurmir@att.net author of Sufi Healing and www.nurmuhammad.com --68.42.85.43 22:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think Sufism is great. This is about the article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your book or website. IPSOS (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a 1000 year old subject, this not an advertising or promotion ?. When we wrote the article your editors all wrote that we need to state references, hence the reference to the book. Like i said if constructive critism on how to fix the article and take away the notion of deletion. we have every right to teach sufi meditation according to  the NAQSHBANDI school of thought . i made reference to 100's article in the meditation section which are literally all explaintions and how to's.
 * When we write about a subject we state who we are, where we got the info and what is our credibility.
 * Please see WP:COI and WP:AUTO. You are not supposed to be writing about yourself or your own work, it is not allowed by Wikipedia culture. IPSOS (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the other article is not according to our teachings.
 * Please see Content forking. You are not allowed to fork an article simply because there is difference of belief or practice. Muraqaba and muraqabah are clearly the same word in Arabic. Everything belongs in one article. If there are differences of belief, they get documented in the same article. You do not get to create a second article to differentiate your sect or school from another sect or school, and then change all the links in other articles so that they go to your article, which is what you did. IPSOS (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i will delete the reference to our book 'healing power of sufi meditation' if that is what you mean by advertising our book. no thanks to wiki we are still not on the ny best sellers list :}
 * please help and not to delete--nur mir 07:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * regarding User:IPSOS comments, your site Sri Chakra is how to hinduism ? with promotion of a website by using the term Outside links isnt that promotion of websites.--nur mir 07:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an article, not a site. I cited a published book (not my own) and found links to pertinant websites, again, none of them my site. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your book or teachings. IPSOS (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.